I had stated previously that I would address America2050.org research paper’s proposed solutions in a latter article just not quite in the way; I was planning. Ever heard the adage ‘plans rarely survive the first engagement’?; the adage seems pretty apt here.
America 2050 is Regional Plan Association’s national infrastructure planning and policy program, providing leadership on a broad range of transportation, sustainability, and economic-development issues impacting America’s growth in the 21st century.
A major focus of America 2050 is the emergence of megaregions – large networks of metropolitan areas, where most of the population growth by mid-century will take place…
… In the coming years America 2050 will continue to provide leadership on regional planning and major infrastructure priorities in the nation, including integrating water and energy planning with land use considerations and developing recommendations for the transition to a new presidential administration in 2013.
America 2050 receives financial support from:
The reality is that in an era of tumultuous economic transition, every place has to reinvent itself, by creating new economic activities to replace those that are in decline. The most successful regions of the country are those that anticipate and lead in these transformations. Places such as New York, Boston, the San Francisco Bay Area, Seattle, Denver and Chicago have done this successfully, makingthe transition from economies driven by traditional manufacturing and defense industries to economies driven by advanced services and high technology.
But this legislation did put a “toe in the water” in promoting longer term economictransformation, with major new investments in broadband, power grid and transportation infrastructure. To transform the nation’s underperforming regions will require a large new commitment to policies, programs and investmentsover decades. But the whole nation will not return to prosperity unless a strong and sustained national commitment is made to addressing this need.
With this goal in mind, several key investments would be necessary to revitalize these communities and their surrounding rural regions. These would include investments in broadband communications, higher education, the publicrealm, historic preservation, cultural activities, as well as subsidized loans for small business creation. In addition, improved transportation links to rural communities would be needed to strengthen their connections to the closest metropolitan area, as described below in the section on the proposed Trans-American Network.
Do I really need to emphasis this economic system is top heavy and produces scarce capital creation through capital structure neglect pricing most out of the capital accumulation markets resulting in ‘wealth inequality’? Apparently, I do.
How can the federal government serve as a catalyst for the transformation of declining regions? Norman Tebbitt, a member of British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher’s cabinet once famously urged the unemployed to “Get on your bike and look for work!”– in other words, move to places where opportunities were greater.3 [http://www.labourhome.org/story/2008/8/13/82041/8086] That is, in effect the current U.S. policy on this issue.
Kevin is right. If getting a job means renting a U-Haul, rent the U-Haul. You have nothing to lose but your government check.
In “The Complacent Class: The Self-Defeating Quest for the American Dream,” economist Tyler Cowen presents an X-ray of societal sclerosis. This isn’t merely another exercise in nostalgia, a sentimental yearning for a bygone era (when, for instance, crime and pollution were higher, people were highly likely to marry someone who lived within five blocks and you would buy an album containing 10 lousy songs because you liked one track). Something has changed in the American character and in the American economy, and the two seem to be reinforcing each other.Yet labor mobility is in a funk…One reason people don’t move where the jobs are is because of real-estate prices — which in turn are kept at high levels by regulatory restrictions and NIMBY-ism. In New York City in the 1950s a typical apartment rented for $60 a month, or $530 today if you adjust for inflation. Two researchers found that if you reduced regulations for building new homes in places like New York and San Francisco to the median level, the resulting expanded workforce would increase US GDP by $1.7 trillion. That won’t happen, though: More homes would diminish the property values of existing homeowners.
So where is all this heading? “Ultimately peace and stability must be paid for,” writes Cowen. Sluggish growth, diminished productivity, unwillingness to move to a better job and fewer entrepreneurs taking risks to create fortunes adds up to less tax revenue. When we lose the ability to pay for stuff, the poorest and least powerful will be the first and worst hurt. They won’t like it.
Other smaller, less successful centers may continue to decline, or in some cases, simply disappear.
Cities today face a myriad of challenges, from crises of inequality to inadequate funds and services. But that doesn’t faze Sidewalk Labs CEO Daniel Doctoroff. His aim: To transform urban environments through technologies that can drive efficiency, raise accountability, and foster a deeper sense of community……Sidewalk Labs, a subsidiary of Alphabet, combines technology, data, policy, and capital to develop products to address “big urban problems” around the world
SC: What are these technologies, and have they already started coalescing to produce change?
DD: The first is ubiquitous connectivity, which we are rapidly approaching. The second is sensing—and by sensing, I mean things like location services, specialty sensors, cameras—which gives us the capacity to measure what’s going on in real time. The third is social networks. The reason social networks are important is that they increase our capacity to trust wider and wider circles of people, places, and things, not just because we can get information about them, but also because people are rating them. The next one is computing power, which helps the average person understand the implications of data and gives them the ability to understand it in new ways through artificial intelligence and machine learning. And the fifth is a set of technologies, like 3D printing and robotics, which will enable us to rethink the design and fabrication of buildings and spaces. So we believe that the combination of those five technologies will make the city of today unrecognizable when we look back from the vantage point of 2050 or 2060.
Are any potential readers familiar with the Zeitgeist Movement that promotes the Venus Project? https://www.thevenusproject.com/
Now imagine the digital networked age where technologies such as sensors and social networks help us better understand what’s going on. Cities can say, “You can do whatever you want in that building as long as your decibel level doesn’t go above X, and we’ll be monitoring it.” The ability to change uses and space quickly becomes possible, enabling the emergence of a whole set of new industries around flexible buildings that can be monitored, lowering cost and creating economic growth….
SC: How do you see all of these foundational technologies and impacts converging over time? What is the catalyst for change for this new era?…
…If cities experiment enough, in partnership with the private sector, you’re going to see innovation flower and spread around the world.
America2050.org research document
The key to revitalizing bypassed regions will be integrating them into metropolitan and global markets to sell goods and services for which they have a uniquecompetitive advantage. The internet and broadband communication provide new opportunities for entrepreneurs to sell products and services in distant metropolitan markets, in the United States and globally.
Back to the interview with Sidewalk Labs ‘urban optimist’
SC: So how do you see that friction playing out between urbanists, preserving some vision of what life in cities is supposed to be like, and technologists, looking at what the technology can do? Where do they run into each other?
DD: The greatest danger to preventing the transformation of cities is the issue of data and privacy. Ubiquitous connectivity is at the center of this opportunity, because how you harvest that data—while protecting people’s privacy—is ultimately the key to the system, right?
Currently, we do not have a set of agreed-upon principles or protocols to manage this issue. We all recognize that in our private lives, we are giving out lots of data in exchange for services. Sometimes we do it knowingly, sometimes we do it tacitly. Some places make it easier, some places make it harder, but we really haven’t begun to confront the issue of data privacy in public spaces. So this integration of physical and digital resting on a foundation of data will create a debate, and that’s a good thing. We’ve got to be able to have those conversations as a society.3
So, we’re not really worried about wealth inequality, so their focus goes to wages that without accounting for artificial scarcity through regulations, taxes, and inflation is pretty much a false argument, but it is the focus.
…Slow but steady improvement in the labor market has continued unabated for years, but one critical economic indicator has remained stuck: wage growth. Wages have grown just 2.5 percent over the past year, only slightly higher than inflation.
Wages are based on compensation of labor conducted through an agreed upon compensation or legal tender that enables ‘income’. Inflation destroys purchasing power through currency debasement typically conducted during a currency war that leads to a trade war preceding outright war.
Are too many Americans still looking for work that they can’t yet demand higher wages? That’s the argument made by Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) who says that the traditional unemployment rate, at 4.4 percent, overstates the tightness of the labor market.
1). Yes. Agricultural-Consumerist-Service economies neglect capital structure thereby creates scarce capital creation for capital accumulation markets. Therefore, you’re expendable. Kinda hard to demand wage increases in that dynamic even arguing your case for needing one.
2). Bare in mind, 4.4 unemployment rate mainly follows those who are unemployed ‘seeking work’.
If this theory is correct, then Trump may have few real avenues to raise wages. Tax cuts or infrastructure investment could provide stimulus to get the economy to full employment.
Ah yes, the glass man multipler of Keynesian economics. Digging trenches, public works, and war have the same effect… Not to mention, GDP is already a bubble primed to burst without the US Dollar’s world’s reserve currency status is over 93% of GDP point of no return.
Under this theory, wage growth is rising as expected under economic theory—but a lack of productivity growth is holding the entire economy back. Traditional economic theory holds that workers’ wages will rise in line with productivity growth—as they become more productive, workers become more valuable to companies and can demand a raise.
Wrong economic model for the ‘theory’ to apply.
Monopolies may not lead just to higher consumer prices; they also may lead to lower wage growth.
Governmental Fiefdoms, Public-Private Partnerships, and Public-Private Mergers Agricultural-Consumerist-Service economies historically required via Oligarchy, Kleptocracy, and Plutocracy becoming an Aristocracy largely requires. Think of it as an Monopoly with the power and authority of government… And, people these days probably never knew there was once an alliance of conservatives and liberals who prevented this crap back in the day…
And, lets look at recent events that I originally discussed:
https://theproblematicmy2cents.wordpress.com/2017/03/12/repeal-replace-aca/ (URL not inserted)
If Ryan’s bill is any indication:
-Capital structure will not be prioritized.
-Deficit to debt spending will continue to rise.
-Purchasing power of wage will come closer to hitting a brick wall.
-As history states, shifting global balance of power is decisively determined by major conflict.
I knew social conservative supporters can get really dumb, but you’d think that they’d look into groups who contribute to Planned Parenthood funding and look at the repeal-replace ACA bill sent to the Senate a bit more closely. In simple terms, they apparently have problems with funding groups who fund groups who fund Planned Parenthood with tax dollars, but they don’t seem to have a problem directly funding groups who fund Planned Parenthood. I don’t see any other way to rationalize what House Republicans just did here…
These tie into tax reform, debt ceiling, and budget issues. These issues will ultimately state where the Trump administration stands.
And, Progressive Democrats and Progressive Republicans promoted governmental fiefdoms, public-private partnerships, and public-private mergers thus far promoting an Agricultural-Consumerist-Service economy.
It’ll be interesting to see the 2018 election cycle unfold, but I’m thinking Republicans maintain their majorities and get absolutely pummeled in 2020.